I really think that this link to a blog that is picked up by truth out dot org is a lot of hyperbole. I can understand some folks' negative reaction to drilling and fracing but this is a bit over the top.just my opinion...

I didn't read the actual bill.Iif the part about the doctors is true, that is kinda scary.I also don't like how it strips power from local authorities. there are already some townships around me that are planning on suing the state regarding that.the robber barons are truly back.

CNBC's show American Greed is doing a story on the MS play. They (American Greed camera crew) is in Bradford County right now taping interviews with locals and with the Big 4 - Chessie, Range, Chief, and Cabot.

sickening, both figuratively and literally. Throughout all of this i've written letter after letter to politicians who are supposed to be representing me, to no avail. The scale and scope of drilling that is occuring without much regulation or study is just plain crazy to me and reeks of corruption. Sometimes i'm ashamed to call myself a resident of this state...

The part about the doctors IS true, however, this is NOT a change from the current procedure, merely deferring to current procedure. This is the basic law for all trade secrets in every industry. If, for instance, someone got sick and suspected it's from drinking Coke Classic, then the doctor would have to request the chemicals that are in Coke Classic from the Coca Cola Company. The company would have to comply, but if Coke wants to, they can require the doctor and patient to first sign confidentiality agreements before supplying the info, thus keeping the doctor and patient from disclosing the recipe or any part of it (trade secret) to the public at large. If they refuse, then the company doesn't have to disclose it's trade secret, though the doctor and patient are free to have it tested as they wish.

So nomatter where you fall on that issue, opposing it for that purpose is essentially opposing it because you disagree with what it doesn't change, not what it does.

As far as the zoning issues, I have to read the bill closer, and will when I get time. Currently, local municipalities are responsible for zoning, and can set them to allow or disallow wells as they see fit. My basic understanding was that this wouldn't change, the localities still can zone things as they choose, which can forbid wells in certain areas if they wish. Just that this bill also gives states zoning power on state lands. Thus the state could "zone" them out of state parks, forests, etc, if they wanted, and even on a piecemeal basis (parts of parks, parts of forests, etc.). Even if they don't own the mineral rights.

But I could be a little off base on that one, that was just my understanding from mass media. I'll read the bill a little closer when I get the chance. I would not knowingly support taking zoning rights away from municipalities. I would support giving the state zoning rights on state lands, or even giving an additional layer of "veto" power for all lands.

miss stevens' article is irresponsible and full of half truths as well as complete misrepresentations of the truth.it is exactly this type of vitriol that keeps the "anti gas" folks from being taken seriously.i'm all for someone speaking their minds about something they feel passionate about,but in there are too many "journalists" who allow that passion to get in the way of factual responsible reporting.